Talk:Dragon Ball Z/GA1
Add topicGA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 03:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I am quickfailing this as ill prepared. I find it hard to believe that the plot of a series that spanned 98 episodes could be summarized in 4 sentences. The plot section needs extensive development. There are multiple entire sections and at least five paragraphs with no WP:ICs. There are numerous bare urls in the citations. These need to be fixed. The extensive all caps text in the citations needs to be reformatted. Please review the WP:LEAD and make sure it summarizes the whole article. No section of the article should be a surprise after reading the LEAD. These types of problems are usually indicative of much deeper problems.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, the external links tool to the right shows that there are a pair of seemingly dead links among the citations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but the plot limit of 700 words is not my liking and is most definately not of my preference, but A&M editors have "consensus" and edit war to enforce it. I don't want to sound mean, but multiple issues you point out are not even in the GA criteria and most are trivial to fix and the plot issue goes straight to wider policy issues. Bare citations and other issues are indicative of major IP activity in the mean time. Could you at least try to give this a fair review and work within what was set up for MOSAM and LEAD? I went by the project's guideline because of situation and I fail to see how this counts as a proper review and seems more like a writing off without even addressing the policy and guidelines (including the MOSAM page) that supposely governs such pages. I ask that you re-open the review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am unfamiliar with a 700 word limit, but version that I reviewed was only 119 words. Note it fails WP:WIAGA 2, 3a, and as you have pointed out it may fail 5. Please don't war with me over this FAIL. If you insist that you feel the current version is GA material, please nominate this at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll do that. I think some of your statements show you did not even closely read the article. Everything is quickly fixable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am unfamiliar with a 700 word limit, but version that I reviewed was only 119 words. Note it fails WP:WIAGA 2, 3a, and as you have pointed out it may fail 5. Please don't war with me over this FAIL. If you insist that you feel the current version is GA material, please nominate this at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but the plot limit of 700 words is not my liking and is most definately not of my preference, but A&M editors have "consensus" and edit war to enforce it. I don't want to sound mean, but multiple issues you point out are not even in the GA criteria and most are trivial to fix and the plot issue goes straight to wider policy issues. Bare citations and other issues are indicative of major IP activity in the mean time. Could you at least try to give this a fair review and work within what was set up for MOSAM and LEAD? I went by the project's guideline because of situation and I fail to see how this counts as a proper review and seems more like a writing off without even addressing the policy and guidelines (including the MOSAM page) that supposely governs such pages. I ask that you re-open the review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)